THE NEW TAXATION

Southland Times, Issue 17755, 5 September 1917, Page 5

THE NEW TAXATION

INEQUALITIES POINTED OUT,

DEPUTATION TO THE MINISTER,

(Per United Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, Sept. 4,

Delegates appointed at a meeting held to consider the taxation proposals waited on the Minister of Finance this evening. The deputationists said there was no desire to escape taxation, and they had no complaint regarding the amount of taxation. They wished the incidence of taxation to be as nearly as possible fair. The present tax on joint stock companies was likely to press hardly on shareholders receiving small amounts. Relief, it was understood, was provided to £3OO a year, but there was no relief for those getting just over £3OO. The deputation asked that the inequalities which would be inflicted on shareholders receiving moderate sums should be remedied. It wag suggested that some people should pay more than they were being asked to pay. A man getting £4OO a year should be prepared to pay more than £6 5s taxation, and a man getting £SOO more than £l2 10s. A man getting a £IOOO should pay more than £2O. If men getting these incomes were deriving them through company investments, they would have to pay from five to ten times those amounts.

Sir J. G. Ward, replying, said that company taxation had been one of the great troubles of the Budget. The trouble with company taxation was to arrive at something fair all round, and the problepi was not easy of resolution. It had been suggested that there should be a flat tax, but that would not work out as well as some people thought. He had not been able to find a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter, and the exemption to £3OO had been made to ameliorate, not to finally remove, the trouble. He thought the only way would be for him to go into it again, to see if the £3OO could be extended. If such an extension meant that a lot of money would have to be made up, they could be sure it would be made up, because the money had to be procured. He would go into it again, and if he could make it more equitable, he would. He intended providing for wasting assets, but found that the revenue lost would be so great that he would have to put additional taxation on the same people. He would again go into the matters raised to see if he could give relief.